Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Recently I found some buried treasure in the form of a mysterious silver coin - although the most valuable thing about it turned out to be its history.View the full article
    • Another one. Top Tory placed dozens of bets on the election date. It looks as if he kept them under £100, thinking they wouldn't be investigated, but the Gambling Commission is looking at potential winnings as well as the size of the bet. How many more are there? https://archive.ph/StZqL
    • The rare item is unique due to a misspelling of legendary musician Paul McCartney's name.View the full article
    • Calm Down please.... there is only one way to deal with this and that is - PROPERLY. Being surrounded by 'lawyers' who deal with 'disputes', just like going to the likes of CAB, in this instance has, most probably, to date,  sadly not helping you here. Such people always project an Aura of confidence, when the truth is they don't actually have the vast successful experience of the members here in dealing with the likes BMW. there are over 350 threads here . as far i gather this is the situation, In April, a car was purchased by your son from BMW. Finance taken out to purchase it has since been paid in full, as well as full payment for an annual Insurance policy. within 6 weeks, it was discovered and confirmed in writing, via a report from a local garage, that the car indeed had numerous performance modifications undertaken. Namely being remapped and with modifications to the exhaust system. having contacted his ins co, they require a further £5k to uprate his policy, without it renders the existing insurance policy invalid, thus the car is not being driven.  again within this 6 weeks, you wrote to BMW rejecting the car (we need to see this letter please. scan it up to PDF, please read our UPLOAD guide). at first BMW were onboard, even sending their own inspector, confirming the mods etc. but in the last 9 days since said inspection, comms have now gone dead. .................. you have 2 options - 1 - allow BMW to sort the car FOC and without hassle to him, but probably within their own snails pace timeframe. 2- EVENTUALLY bring legal action - this would most probably be under contract law, not a claim under the consumer rights act . (as financially you would lose out big time) to do 2. which is not easy and rather complex to calculate the financial sum involved...... we need all the info @BankFodder has requested. of many, but one good reason for this is say for this new mot, show the old one was suspect, good bargaining chip against 2500mls usage deductions... your call but you need to do this properly or not at all...............    
    • Hi, I've been reading through many of the stories in the sub-forum and I understand the process to be to send a Letter of Claim to the EVRi - in the post and to their customer support email and to sign up for MCOL.  I have looked at the various Letters of Claim and the MCOL claim forms - particulars of claim and I have gone through all of the screens on MCOL website to put in the final details so it is ready to go after the 14 days from when I send the Letter of Claim (of course assuming that EVRi dismisses my Letter of Claim to pay me in full!).  I also see the advise is to decline any mediation particularly because I have specified the parcel contents and value to EVRi when shipping it. I have put both the Letter of Claim and the forms from the MCOL particulars of claim into a single PDF for review.  The stories in the sub-forum often indicate people shipping with EVRi but some purchase through or have involved such companies as Parcel2Go and so I wasn't sure about the statement I made in the Letter of Claim if it was totally accurate to say "I am applying my third party rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999"? I just wanted to confirm the correct wording.  In my case the parcel shipment was paid for on the EVRi website and sent at the Tesco EVRi Parcelshop.  On the MCOL claim form I have referenced Section 57 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in response to EVRi customer service hiding behind their lack of ability to insure delivery of laptops and their bogus non-compensated and prohibited items as a means to avoid any responsibility for them losing such items. Thank you for taking a look to see if there are any inaccuracies or amendments to the Letter of Claim - when it is looking good I will send via email and post it to EVRi.  Having drafted the particulars of the claim on MCOL, I shall be ready to submit the claim on the MCOL site when the 14 day period has elapsed and proceed from there.   Thanks for everyone's help! Letter of claim and MCOL Particulars of Claim.pdf
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Evri lost my Ebay parcel £844 - court claim issued ***Judgment***


Recommended Posts

I can't imagine that EVRi will want a judgement against them on this and based on this argument. I reckon you have a better than 90% chance that they will try to reach out to you before the trial date.

They know that what they are doing is thoroughly wrong and dishonest and contrary to law.

They are following this thread, of course – and they've already seen this witness statement. I imagine that they are scrabbling around trying to understand how they can extricate this without using too much face. I suppose they will make an offer to you which is a few quid short of your claim in order to say that they were justified in being stupid.

Hold out for every penny. It's your money and you deserve it. It's not their money and they don't deserve it

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback. I have added the new paragraph 47 to my version of the WS / court bundle as per the feedback.

I won't be uploading an updated version of the WS / court bundle here, given there is no other changes needed to the previous WS / court bundle uploaded yesterday (post #244).

I will now get 2 copies of the updated final WS / court bundle printed and ready to post to the Court and to Evri.

For reference, the date for filing the bundle is 24th May at the latest - this is 14 days before the hearing date of 7th June.

I'll keep you all updated on if Evri reaches out to me before the trial date. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There won't be any more amendments but please do upload The final version because other people who need similar help might find some of the contents useful

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, although i'd like to think other people would read the thread to access the final version uploaded yesterday and recognise that there was feedback post-upload for only a new paragraph 47 to be added.

Anyway, attached is the redacted updated final version of the WS / Court bundle with the new paragraph.

Final WS and Court Bundle redacted.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be helpful if the entire final version appeared in one document .

Also I am going to go back and delete the draft unamended versions in order to recover a bit of space

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, yes the entire final version is in the 1 document uploaded today.

Make sense to have the previous draft versions deleted to avoid confusion - i believe there are at least 15 previous drafts (before i stopped counting)!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, just getting ready to print and post the WS / court bundle.

Does the envelope have to be addressed to anyone in particular (e.g., head of legal), or can it just be sent to the The legal department with the usual Evri address?

i.e.: The legal department, Herme5 parcelnet limited t/a Evri, Capitol House, 1 Capitol Close, Leeds Morley, LS27 0WH

Link to post
Share on other sites

the person/address that they used to file their defence from.

  • Thanks 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, occysrazor said:

Hi, just getting ready to print and post the WS / court bundle.

Does the envelope have to be addressed to anyone in particular (e.g., head of legal), or can it just be sent to the The legal department with the usual Evri address?

i.e.: The legal department, Herme5 parcelnet limited t/a Evri, Capitol House, 1 Capitol Close, Leeds Morley, LS27 0WH

 

You can email EVRi theirs.

  • Thanks 1

underpaid paralegal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Evri Claims <EVRI.CLAIMS@EVRi-europe.co.uk>

Small CLaims small.claims@EVRi-europe.co.uk

send to one of these, cc the other.

No real point in wasting the pages printing for evri because they'll scan and sent to an advocate, so by email should be easier.

up to you of course.

Edited by jk2054
  • Thanks 1

underpaid paralegal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Just an update that I posted the bundle to the county court and to Evri earlier in the week.

I have also sent a copy to the court by email.

I did email a copy to Evri using the 2 email addresses above, and received an undeliverable email saying that the email does not exist:

  • EVRI.CLAIMS@EVRi-europe.co.uk
  • small.claims@EVRi-europe.co.uk

if there are any other email addresses that have successfully worked, please do let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Evri.Claims@EVRi-europe.co.uk

Small.Claims@EVRi-europe.co.uk

The site auto changes it. It needs to be the old name for evri 

Evri Claims <EVRI.CLAIMS@hermés-europe.co.uk>

Small CLaims small.claims@hermés-europe.co.uk

use these but change the e to the one without the accent

the site auto changes them sadly

its evris old name is the email domain

  • Thanks 1

underpaid paralegal

Link to post
Share on other sites

numerous posts merged

so its simply as ive highlighted in red the e has a hyphen when it should not?

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes

but the problem is if you try to type the word hermés without the accent the site auto replaces the word to evri

but for the email it is hermés europe not evri europe so the auto correct causes the email to be displayed wrong hence it bounced

underpaid paralegal

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think email addresses worried about upper case or lower case or accents, but are you sure that the accent on EVRi isn't è with the accent going down from left to right, rather than up? That's how it would be in French.

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not understanding the probelm.

 

The problem is when i write the old name of evri (which is hermés without the accent) this forum auto changes it to evri which means the email address the OP ends up using is wrong.

 

 

underpaid paralegal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

I sent a copy of the court bundle to the 2 email addresses provided by JK and followed the instructions to change the hyphenated é to a normal e in the email address. This has worked as I have not received an undeliverable email saying that the email does not exist.

As per my previous posts, a copy of the court bundle has also been sent by post to the court and to Evri.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi all, an update on the case as the deadline for filing the WS is tomorrow i.e., 14 days before the hearing date: 7th June.

Evri have emailed their WS today to the court and to myself. Attached pdf of their WS - I have redacted personal information and left any redactions/highlights by Evri.

In the main:

  • The WS is signed by George Wood.
  • Evri have stated the claim value that I am seeking to recover is £931.79 including £70 court fees, and am putting me to strict proof as to the value of the claim.
  • Evri's have accepted that the parcel is lost but there is no contract between Evri and myself, and that the contract is with myself and Packlink
  • They have provided a copy of the eBay Powered By Packlink Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) to support their argument the contractual relationship is between myself and Packlink, highlighting clause 3a, e, g of these T&Cs.
  • They further highlight clause 14 of the T&Cs which states that Packlink's liability is limited to £25 unless enhanced compensation has been chosen.
  • They have contacted Packlink who informed them that I had been in contact with Packlink and raised a claim with Packlink and the claim had been paid accordingly i.e., £25 in line with the T&Cs and the compensated postage costs of £4.82.
  • They believe this is clear evidence that my contract is with Packlink and should therefore cease the claim against Evri.
  • Evri also cite Clause 23 of the pre-exiting commercial agreement between the Defendant and Packlink, which states: 

    ‘Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

    A person who is not a party to this Agreement shall have no rights under the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Act 1999 to rely upon or enforce any term of this Agreement provided that this does not affect any right or remedy of the third party which exists or is available apart from that Act.’

    This means that the Claimant cannot enforce third party rights under the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and instead should cease this claim and raise a dispute with the correct party.

 

Having read Evri's WS and considered the main points above, I have made these observations:

  • Evri have not seen/read my WS (sent by post and by email) as they would have recognised the claim value is over £1000 as it includes court fees, trial fees, postage costs and interests, and there is a complete breakdown of the different costs and evidence.
  • Evri accepts the parcel is lost after it entered their delivery network - again, this is in my WS and is not an issue in dispute.
  • Evri mentions the £25 and £4.82 paid by Packlink - Again, had they read the WS, they would have realised this is not an issue in dispute.
  • Furthermore to the eBay Powered By Packlink T&Cs that Evri is referring to, Clauses 3b and c of the T&Cs states: 
    (b)   Packlink is a package dispatch search engine that acts as an intermediary between its Users and Transport Agencies. Through the Website, Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line.
    (c)  Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency
     
  • This supports the view that once a user (i.e, myself) selects a transport agency (i.e Evri) that best suits the user's needs, the user (i.e, myself) enters into a contract with the chosen transport agency (i.e, myself). Therefore, under the T&Cs, there is a contract between myself and Evri.
  • Evri cites their pre-existing agreement with Packlink and that I cannot enforce 3rd party rights under the 1999 Act. Evri has not provided a copy of this contract, and furthermore, my point above explains that the T&Cs clearly explains I have entered into a contract when i chose Evri to deliver my parcel. 
  • As explained in my WS, i am the non-gratuitous beneficiary as my payment for Evri's delivery service through Packlink is the sole reason for the principal contract coming into existence.
  • Clearly Evri have not read by WS as the above is all clearly explained in there.

 

I am going to respond to Evri's email by stating that I have already sent my WS to them by post/email and attach the email that sent on the weekend to them containing my WS.

However, before i do that, If there is anything additional I should further add to the email, please do let me know.

Thanks.

Evri Witness Statement Redacted v1 compressed.pdf

Edited by occysrazor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ok so they have given you the contract of you and packlink.

your enforcing the rights of the contract between evri and packlink.... so I don't really think this contract makes a smudge of difference.

unless ive missed something @BankFodder

 

Also on the bit that says "Evri also cite Clause 23 of the pre-exiting commercial agreement between the Defendant and Packlink,"

 

such agreement hasnt been provided so can't be considered. judges arent goign to consider a term that the defendant has just said exists.

thats not how it works.

 

 

Edited by jk2054
  • Like 1

underpaid paralegal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote
  • Furthermore to the eBay Powered By Packlink T&Cs that Evri is referring to, Clauses 3b and c of the T&Cs states: 
    (b)   Packlink is a package dispatch search engine that acts as an intermediary between its Users and Transport Agencies. Through the Website, Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line.
    (c)  Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency
     

This is a very important find. I don't understand why nobody has picked up on this before.

It's a shame that you have only just found it but please will you get a screenshot and also give us a link to the page which contains this and if possible a link to the actual passage.

This makes a huge difference because if this is right that the third party actually has a direct contract with the courier company then they can rely on their consumer rights rather than commercial rights.

Also as you seem to have pointed out, even if  their commercial contract does exclude third-party rights, the clause that you have found on the eBay site directly contradicts that And this should be pointed out to the judge. 

Please will you screenshot the passage. Give us a link and then stand by for a response later on today.

We will have to send this additional piece of information to the court and don't worry we will manage to do it before the 4:00 pm deadline.

And in any event, you will certainly want to see the entire contract in original form and receive clarification as to when their third-party exclusion close was included in it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Evri provided a copy of the Ebay powered by Packlink T&Cs in their WS/Court bundle - this is already uploaded in post #246 yesterday.

I copy and pasted the actual wording of clauses 3b and 3c from there into my post #246.

see points 3b and 3c in Section 3 (General) through this link to the T&Cs:  https://support-ebay.packlink.com/hc/en-gb/articles/360004768420-eBay-Delivery-Powered-by-Packlink-Terms-and-Conditions#h_01HFXQJBTB441YZGPB7CQP9KFV

Screenshot attached below.

I cant answer why its not been picked up before. In my opinion, this is called Ebay powered by packlink T&Cs so it could be intepreted to mean Ebay and Packlink's T&Cs rather than Packlink and the delivery couriers T&Cs.

In regards to seeing Evri/Packlink's entire contract in original form, in my WS, Evri has been invited to provide this. They have not provided the contract in their WS/court bundle.

Screenshot_20240524_024259_Chrome.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just noted that in Section 4 of the ebay powered by packlink T&Cs, there is a link to a list of webpages for each Transport Agency including Evri.

When clicking on this, it redirects to Evri's send terms and conditions, which says:

Our contract with you

When you send a parcel with us, you enter into a contract with Evri. These terms and conditions set out your responsibilities and our service commitments to you, along with some legal bits about our liability and how you will be compensated in the unlikely event that things go wrong.

Link to Evri send T&Cshttps://www.evri.com/terms-and-conditions

the extract highlighted in bold above is pertinent as in Evri's own T&Cs, by sending a parcel with Evri, the sender and Evri have entered into a contract.

Screenshot of the above extract attached.

Screenshot_20240524_030834_Chrome.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...